Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Spotlight on Immigration Reform

Aired May 18, 2007 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, immigration in the spotlight. What a new bill could mean to illegal immigrants and to our nation`s security.

Plus three American border agents in jail for doing their job.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They entrusted me to stop the drug smuggler, and I did.

BECK: I`ll talk to the man who put them behind bars.

And would you believe that this guy actually disagrees with me on immigration?

(on camera) I just want to have a conversation, but he interrupts every time.

(voice-over) What I`ve learned from Geraldo Rivera. No, seriously.

All this and more tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Illegal immigration, this -- this show used to be one of the few places that you`d hear anybody talking about it, but with a 2008 presidential election season in full swing, it`s finally getting some national attention from the politicians who could actually make a difference.

But will they do more than talk? The answer is no.

Over the next hour, I`m going to look at the issue from all sides. Later on, I`m going to sit down with John Johnny Sutton, the man responsible for imprisoning U.S. border guards who I believe were guilty of nothing more than trying to keep dangerous drug smugglers and illegal aliens out of our country.

But first, Senate Republicans and Democrats spent more of their time and our money yesterday haggling over the final details of a deal that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. You know, amnesty that everybody`s against.

As of now, legislators say they have reached an agreement, but that announcement was short on details. I`d like to be a little more optimistic about this agreement, but considering how Congress has been, historically speaking, with this subject, the whole plan could fall apart and our border will be even less secure and our country much less safe.

Besides, even if they do pass it, it`s still going to be that way, because now the politicians don`t even have to pretend they care about the border. They`ve got their precious amnesty. Soon the busts and the raids will stop and you can forget about that fence ever being built.

So what is the new and improved immigration plan? Here to tell us now is Jerry Seib, Washington bureau chief for the "Wall Street Journal", and Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation of American Immigration Reform.

Jerry, let me start with you. Real quick, tell me what this deal looks like.

JERRY SEIB, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, what it looks like is an agreement among senators in the White House to reform immigration laws by, first of all, putting new border security measures in place. Second of all...

BECK: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Give me those. What are they?

SEIB: You`re going to have high-tech monitoring on the border. You`re going to have more border security agents. And more importantly, I think you`re going to have a real identity program so that employers can be sure of the legal status of people they hire.

BECK: You know what? I`ll actually believe in this virtual fence the day the White House gets rid of the fence around the White House and we put just a virtual fence there.

There`s also the -- tell me about the $5,000 fine.

SEIB: Well, if you`re an illegal alien here now and you want to get legal status, you have to step forward and pay a $5,000 fine and fees. And at that point, you can get legal status. But that`s a long way...

BECK: Wait. But do you also have to go home?

SEIB: You don`t have to go home, but you`re not granted -- you`re not guaranteed anything beyond a temporary legal status and after you pay the fines and after you pay the fees.

BECK: Yes. Just so you know, America, let me just be very clear. I did the math on this. These people are making, you know, $15,000 a year, some of them, if they`re lucky. Imagine trying to live on $15,000 a year.

Now let`s be compassionate here for just a second. Now we`re going to hit them with a $5,000 fine. You`ve got to go home. Go ahead and get home. Quit your job, go back home while we decide whether you`re going to be a citizen or not.

For the average person, that`s $48,000 a year. That`s what you make if you`re an average American, $48,000. This is like hitting you with a 15 -- I think it`s $15,600 fine.

If you`re already living under the radar, you think you`re going to pay that fine? Why would you?

SEIB: I think that depends entirely on how well the worker I.D. program works. In other words, would employers get to a point where they really won`t hire you unless you have legal status of some kind, in which case the employment pool for people who are here, both illegally and under the radar screen, dried up.

BECK: Yes. And then Ira, do you really think that that`s going to happen?

IRA MEHLMAN, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Well, no, they`re not going to enforce the laws. You know, we have heard these promises made countless times, and each time they`ve been broken.

You know, what we saw today was a complete capitulation to every special interest in the United States. The Republicans managed to deliver cheap labor for their business constituency. The Democrats got their amnesty.

The American public got the same old recycled set of promises that have been broken countless times, and there`s one thing you can count on in this bill. They`ll be broken again.

BECK: Yes. You know, here`s the -- here`s the statement from the president on how great this is. And let me just tell you -- George, I ain`t buying it. It`s crap. This has never been about the illegals that are here. This is about security.

Does anybody in Washington, either one of you guys, does anybody get that we`ve got wide-open borders to the north and the south, and then we also have a world full of people that want to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans? Does anybody get that in Washington?

MEHLMAN: No. And aside from the wide-open borders, what this bill will do is allow anybody to file an application. Within 24 hours, they`ll get work authorization and suspension of any deportation possibility. So they will be here for the foreseeable future.

And if they are intent on doing anything like a terrorist activity, they will have plenty of time to do it. It allows for judicial review. So anybody who`s denied amnesty will be able to litigate this. And given the sheer volume of cases, we`ll probably be dealing with this until the 23rd century. It is absolute unmitigated amnesty.

BECK: So Jerry, anybody -- we want to enforce this. How can we do it when we can`t even ask if you`re an illegal alien? How do we enforce this?

SEIB: The problem is the current laws aren`t being enforced. I think this creates a legal structure in which there`s some hope of actually being able to identify people who are here and sort out the ones who are supposed to be here and the ones who aren`t.

I think the argument for this is essentially right now you`ve got law, and nobody`s even attempting to enforce it. If you create a system that has some chance of working, then maybe you attempt to enforce the laws that are pretty much being ignored all up and down the border right now.

BECK: Jerry -- hang on just a second. Jerry, look at me. Hang on.

SEIB: You asked me what I thought. I`m telling you what I thought, OK? If you don`t want to know, then don`t ask.

BECK: I`m just saying.

SEIB: But I`m telling you that`s the justification.

BECK: I`m just saying. You`re an intelligent man. Do you really believe that it is...

SEIB: You didn`t ask -- you didn`t ask what I believe. You asked what does this say? That`s what this says. Does it have a chance to work? I don`t know. But does the current system work? Clearly not. I think everybody would agree on that.

BECK: Yes. Ira, what do you believe?

MEHLMAN: I believe that this will be ignored just like every other promise that has been made. And we don`t have to go back 20 years to the amnesty of 1986 to see all the broken promises.

It was just six months ago that President Bush signed a deal to put the fence along the Mexican border there. That has been broken already. The Democrats have said they`re not going to fund it. So if they`ve broken that promise in six months, you know, they`ll probably set a new record breaking this one.

BECK: And hang on. Jerry, you would know. This is -- this is a law. The -- the new wall, that was passed into law, that they had to build 800 miles of it. We`ve built two. Now Ira just says that they`re not going to build anymore, correct?

SEIB: Well, I don`t know how much wall is going to be built. But I mean, there`s going to be millions and millions more spent on border security now that weren`t in the pipeline, you know, yesterday. And that - - you know, clearly money will be spent. That`s the price the White House is paying to get to this point.

Now, you also have to keep in mind, this isn`t through the Senate yet. It isn`t through the House yet. There`s every reason to think this may fall apart because of exactly the kinds of objections that Ira is talking about.

So we`re a long way from having a plan that is, in fact, as you say, law. We`re not at a law yet. We`re at an agreement and a press conference.

BECK: OK.

SEIB: There`s a long road to go here.

BECK: Jerry, one more question for you, and then Ira. Then we`ll wrap it up with Ira. But Jerry, $60 billion. If everybody pays their fines, $60 billion. Where does the money go?

SEIB: Well, you know, the money is supposed to go to more border security enforcement. So you know, it`s an expensive proposition.

BECK: Right. And lottery money is also supposed to go to the school children, as well.

Ira, where the hell were the Republicans on this?

MEHLMAN: They sold out. They are absolutely spineless. They capitulated to big business` demands for unlimited amounts of cheap labor. And the price of that was the amnesty.

So, you know, business gets its wish of doing away with the middle class in the United States. And the Democrats get their multicultural welfare state down the line. So they`re happy. It`s just the American people who are going to take it on the chin.

BECK: Jerry, no offense. I didn`t mean to direct any of my anger on this whole thing to you. I`m sorry that I offended you.

And Ira, thanks for your time.

Coming up, U.S. border guards who I believe were wrongly imprisoned for doing nothing more than protecting our -- and securing our country. I`ll talk to two congressmen who are fighting for their pardons, while I fight for their exoneration.

And then I`m going to talk to the man whose -- who put those border guards in jail, U.S. attorney Johnny Sutton. You want a guy who wears a black hat? I believe it`s this guy. He`ll be joining me in the studio for a face-to-face interview that you do not want to miss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Coming up a little later on in the program, you`ve heard me talk about Johnny Sutton before. He`s the U.S. attorney down in Texas who decided to put three U.S. border agents behind bars for doing their jobs. I`ve got a few questions for Mr. Sutton. In just a bit, he`ll be on set, sitting down face to face.

But first, every year, half a million illegal immigrants come streaming across our borders. They`re not all family men looking for jobs. Some are looking for trouble, trying to smuggle guns and drugs into our country and God knows what else.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were U.S. border guards just doing their job, doing their best to live their lives in raising their children. One day while they`re on patrol, they were allegedly forced to fire at a gun-toting illegal, allegedly a gun-toting illegal, who was trying to smuggle more than 700 pounds of pot into this country. That part`s not alleged. He`s done it before.

Agent Ramos hit the guy in the butt. Hmm!

Men like Ramos and Compean put their lives on the line every day they put their uniform on. And the thanks they get for doing the right is a mockery of a trial, an unjust conviction and more than a decade each in prison, locked down for 23 hours a day in solitary. Welcome to America.

Here to share my outrage, Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, as well as former prosecutor himself, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher from California.

Dana, I want to start with you. You want a pardon for these men from President Bush. I want exoneration. Any chance we get either?

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: I don`t believe so. The president won`t even permit these men to get out on bond until their appeal is done. And we do that with normal criminals. And after, of course, there was a beating in the prison, that would, of course, be very justified.

So they won`t send them to minimum security prison. They won`t let them out on bond. Their lives are in danger. They shouldn`t have been prosecuted in the first place. This is all decisions by this administration.

BECK: I`m talking to Johnny Sutton here in just a second. And one of the problems that I have with Johnny Sutton is he`s got a relationship with the president. He has a relationship with the attorney general. They`re buddies.

He answers to the attorney general and the president. There`s nobody here to check his facts.

ROHRABACHER: He has a long-time relationship with this president, which is probably one of the horror stories of this case, because the president is backing up his guy who made the wrong decision. He made the decision to go after the Border Patrol agents instead of the drug dealer, the illegal alien drug dealer.

He`s made a choice of, you know, basically throwing the book at these two guys and then lying about them, trying to cover it up, saying that they were corrupt Border Patrol agents.

You need to ask him about that. Why did he refer to these guys as corrupt when there`s never been a charge of corruption against them?

BECK: You know, I`ve looked at all of his interviews that he has done recently. I mean, I know how this guy`s going to answer these questions, and it is -- it`s nothing but bull crap, as far as I`m concerned.

But the one thing that I just don`t understand is how these guys can get away with it. How these -- how this administration can get away with letting an illegal immigrant, who is smuggling drugs and has a history of smuggling drugs, let him go. Let him out.

ROHRABACHER: Well, that was a decision made by Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney`s office and their prosecutors. They`ve made the decision to throw the book at these two Border Patrol agents. They`ve made a decision to insist they stay in prison under harsh circumstances.

These were all -- and they made the decision to lie to the jury and not tell the jury that this drug dealer had been arrested again -- or excuse me, fingered again, identified again in another related drug shipment.

BECK: Yes, God forbid we arrest the guy.

Congressman Poe, let me give you two questions here. The Mexican government is -- is involved in this. We`re taking our orders from Mexico. He`s going to say here in two minutes that that`s not true. But we`re clearly taking orders from Mexico.

REP. TED POE (R), TEXAS: No question about it. Mexican officials, their consulate, in righteous indignation and arrogance...

BECK: Yes.

POE: ... demanded in a letter that these border agents be prosecuted. They demanded the other deputy sheriffs be prosecuted. And every time the Mexican government demanded our federal border protectors be prosecuted, we jumped through the hoops.

The federal government jumps through the hoops, spends millions of taxpayer dollars prosecuting the good guys and gives the bad guys, the drug dealers, a pass and let them stay in the United States and treat their wounds.

BECK: Sutton says that, you know, his hands were tied on the -- on the sentence. And it`s -- you know, it`s ten years in solitary. Ten years.

He says that, you know, hey, you use a gun like this and that`s -- I`m sorry, that`s just the deal. In 15 years, in 15 years, no law enforcement agent has ever had this, none in 15 years. Any speculation on this?

POE: Well, it`s because the federal prosecutes wanted those two border agents in prison for a long time to set an example. What it does is tell the border agents down on the border, you get into trouble, you have a conflict with somebody on the border that`s trying to coming in and deliver drugs, they`re not going to support you. They`re going to support the bad guys.

BECK: Yes. Dana, $5 million, this drug runner, this drug runner is suing us now for $5 million. I heard -- and clearly, this is rumor. Tell me if you can verify this. I`ve heard that we`ve settled for $3.7 million.

ROHRABACHER: I don`t know the validity of that. But it wouldn`t surprise me.

The fact is the drug -- we have made decision. Again, Johnny Sutton is going to tell you, "Oh, I had to make these decisions. It was mandated by law." Well, we have a judge with us right here who can tell us whether or not the mandate was they had to go out for the Border Patrol agents or the drug dealer.

And Judge Poe, I think that, with your experience, that you could verify. Johnny Sutton had a choice, so he chose to go after the good guys rather than the bad guys.

BECK: Tell me about that.

POE: Well, no question about it. Assume everything Johnny Sutton said about the Border Patrol agents is true. Why didn`t we give them immunity to prosecute the guy bringing in a million dollars worth of drugs? Public policy that says we want the drug dealer in prison...

BECK: NO, he`ll say -- I`ve already heard him answer this question several times before, and believe me, I ain`t wasting my time on it. He -- what he will say on that is "You`ve got a dirty cop. You`ve got to, you know, get those dirty cops out of there."

And you know what? If they were dirty, if I believed him for a second, I`d agree with him. I want to make sure that we have good, clean border guards down there.

ROHRABACHER: Let us just note this, that he has used the word "corrupt" to describe these two Border Patrol agents several times. They have never been charged with corruption. They are about the cleanest of the clean.

One of them was a formal naval officer and naval reserve officer. He was up for patrolman. He was nominated to be patrolman of the year.

The other one, who had been in the military and then five years with the Border Patrol. These are good human beings who were protecting our families.

BECK: He`s going to say that there was a cover-up, that they covered this whole thing up. They didn`t make any reports whatsoever.

POE: The cover-up was by the U.S. attorney`s office for failure to let the jury know that the drug dealer brought in another load of a million dollars worth of drugs. And they didn`t want the jury to hear about it, and the jury didn`t hear about it. So the cover-up may be with the U.S. attorney`s office.

BECK: OK. We are going to -- Congressman, if you won`t mind sticking around for a bit. I`m going to try to squeeze you guys back in later in -- on the program to revisit this, because we can`t legally have Johnny Sutton and members of Congress on in the same break. But I`d like you to sweep up, maybe, after if we have time, coming up.

Also, we`ll speak to the man who put our border guards behind bars. Yes, Johnny Sutton joins me in the studio, face to face with tough questions. You do not want to miss this interview.

And in case you missed it yesterday morning, my immigration discussion with Geraldo Rivera from "Good Morning America". Nothing like being called a racist at the crack of down. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: I have been telling you about the plight of Ignacio Ramos. Actually, I`ve been doing it for four months now. He is the U.S. border agent who has spent the last 121 days in prison for trying to keep an illegal alien drug smuggler out of the country. Those are the first long days of an 11-year sentence.

I`m joined now by his wife, Monica Ramos.

Monica, how are you?

MONICA RAMOS, WIFE OF IGNACIO RAMOS: Hi, fine, thank you. Thank you for having me.

BECK: You bet. May I start with a really tough question? Because I`m about to face Johnny Sutton, the guy who is responsible for putting your husband behind bars. And there is -- there are a lot of facts out here that he has -- he has been saying that I just want to check with you. May I?

RAMOS: Sure.

BECK: OK. He has claimed that your husband is a wife abuser. That there is domestic abuse.

RAMOS: I wouldn`t be sitting here today. I wouldn`t be sitting here today. And I can tell you right now, it`s disgusting to see how Mr. Sutton can just put out such inaccuracy. I mean, it`s just a pattern he`s taken it.

BECK: Where would that -- I`m sorry. I don`t mean to inflict this on you. But where would that come from?

RAMOS: There was, you know, personal problems in the beginning of my marriage. I mean, these aren`t things that are a secret. But I can tell you right now, that the way he puts them out -- and as a wife beater. I don`t think he`s qualified to make that kind of determination.

I can tell you right now, instances that happened with my husband, he wouldn`t have -- not been allowed to carry a weapon in Border Patrol.

BECK: OK.

RAMOS: These are inaccurate reports. And he continues to use that as a tactic to veer the public from -- from the real cause of this, you know, prosecuting two agents versus an admitted known drug smuggler.

BECK: Your husband is in 23 hours of isolation every single day. Have you seen him?

RAMOS: I did.

BECK: Seen him recently?

RAMOS: I did. I had the opportunity to see him on Monday. And you know, I have to tell you that no visit is easy at any time.

Just to see him this past Monday was just heart-wrenching. It`s a bittersweet, you know, reunion every time I see him. But just the drastic transformation in how he looks and what he`s enduring -- I sat there with him for about six hours.

BECK: How does he look?

RAMOS: He was in a daze. I mean, he`s lost about 40 pounds already.

BECK: Holy cow.

RAMOS: That is very drastic. His hair is about four inches long all around. So it just -- I see, like, a totally different person. You know, I can see -- I could feel his pain. And just sitting there talking to him, holding his hand, I could feel his pain.

BECK: He is in isolation for 23 hours a day. Tell me what your kids did that you brought him?

RAMOS: My kids actually -- my kids didn`t get to se him this past Monday. In fact, they`ll get to see him next month. But my kids actually sent him some pictures. I thought it was really creative. My children were able to send him pictures of the moon, the sun and the stars.

And one of my children said that if daddy can`t get out and is able to experience this and enjoy these kind of things, we`ll bring them in to him. And I thought that that was really special.

BECK: Monica, thank you for being on the program.

Johnny Sutton is coming up next, the man responsible for imprisoning former Agent Ramos. You don`t want to miss the next few minutes. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right, want to get right to it. Joining me now, U.S. attorney for the western district of Texas and the man behind the prosecution of the border agents, Ramos and Compean, Johnny Sutton.

Welcome, Mr. Sutton. How are you, sir?

JOHNNY SUTTON, U.S. ATTORNEY: I`m going great. Thank you, Glenn, for letting me be here.

BECK: You asked to be on the program. And I have to tell you, sir, that I`m -- you`re not entering a friendly space.

SUTTON: Oh, good, well, I`m happy to take it on.

BECK: I don`t believe the government on this. I don`t believe the government is interested in actually doing anything but sending a very frightening message to our border guard. I don`t know if you`re involved or your a pawn or you`re just -- or I`m wrong, but let`s get to it.

SUTTON: Let`s duke it out and straighten it out right here.

BECK: Let`s start with the alleged cover-up. The two agents go, and they shoot at the drug smuggler...

SUTTON: Fifteen times.

BECK: ... 15 times, they shoot at him. He`s running away. He`s shot in the butt. Forensics show that it looks like he may have been turned around, which shows that he was running. They go and pick up the shell casings, right?

SUTTON: Yes.

BECK: OK. There are two agents -- I`m sorry, seven agents and two supervisors there. What kind of cover-up is going on when they`re picking up the shell casings with seven -- or, I`m sorry, nine other people?

SUTTON: Right, and that`s another big part of the misinformation here. At the time of the shooting, there were not seven agents. There was three. And that`s Compean, Ramos and Agent Juarez, who is standing right there. I mean, they have this drug dealer in a ditch with his hands in the air. All they had to do was put the handcuffs on him. And, instead, someone yells in English, "Hit him," and Compean tries to hit him with the shotgun.

BECK: According to the drug smuggler.

SUTTON: No, no, Juarez says that, and Compean says that. I`m sorry, the drug smuggler and Compean say somebody said, "Hit him," in English. I mean, Compean admits that in his own testimony.

BECK: But you said -- I`ve heard you on several problems -- you said the real problem here is the cover-up. So, again, I`ve got nine agents, including two supervisors, there, watching people pick up the...

SUTTON: No, all those people show up later.

BECK: Really?

SUTTON: All those people show up later. And even Compean and Ramos admit that the supervisors weren`t there. They admit that in their own testimony at trial, supervisors weren`t there. There were agents who were involved in a cover-up. Agent Vazquez picked up the shell casings with Compean. Compean only found nine of his 14 shots, so he was missing five shells. Vazquez went back and picked those up and threw them away and called them on his cell phone.

BECK: Do you think there was any possibility they were trying to pick up those up because they`re scared to death that you`ll put them behind bars for doing their job?

SUTTON: Well, I mean, that`s the thing that`s funny about this case is, since I`ve been U.S. attorney, there`s been 14 times where Border Patrol has shot their guns on duty. In four of those occasions, they killed the suspect, mostly an illegal alien. Every time, Border Patrol came forward. They explained why they shot, and it was clear. No problem, no charges.

And that`s why I`m saying to you, the message in this is really twisted around, because Border Patrol, we give them guns, we expect them to defend themselves. They are American heroes. And we`re not going to wait for them to get hit in the head or shot before they can use deadly force to protect themselves.

But when they do use deadly force, they need to explain what it is so we can evaluate it. And in the 14 times, except for these two, every time they`ve been cleared, including four killings, you know, where they kill people dead.

BECK: Right, well, except for the guy who had a bullet ricochet off of a tire...

(CROSSTALK)

SUTTON: Yes, I guess, Glenn, here`s my question. Why cover up if it`s a good shoot? I mean, why in the world do you cover up if it`s a good shoot?

BECK: Well, because you`re afraid that you`re going to be thrown in prison.

SUTTON: Of what? Nobody`s been going to prison.

BECK: You`re going to be thrown in prison. Let me give you -- this comes from the Department of Homeland Security. This is the actual report. You didn`t have the FBI. You had the Department of Homeland Security investigate this. So this is from their actual report, that they were on location during the shooting incident or of the shooting incident. They assisted in destroying the evidence of the shooting and/or knew or heard about the shooting, and it lists all of them, including the two supervisors.

SUTTON: Everyone agrees, including Compean and Ramos, their supervisors were not on the scene. And even their own testimony says, "We didn`t tell our supervisors. We just assumed someone else did."

Look, when you shoot somebody, you`ve got to say that you shot somebody. You don`t have to incriminate yourself, but you at least have to explain that guns were fired so the investigation. And, by the way, Ramos is on the sector evidence team, so he knows, whenever there`s a shooting, you`ve got to mark it, you`ve got clear it off, you`ve got to pick up the evidence.

BECK: Sure. But you don`t write a report, do you?

SUTTON: No, you do write a report.

BECK: No, you report to your supervisor orally, I understand.

SUTTON: Right, what you do is you must report within one hour of a shooting. And then you don`t have to...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: And if your supervisors were coming to the scene, you would just assume that it...

(CROSSTALK)

SUTTON: You`re supposed to tell them that, "I shot 15 times at a guy who pointed a gun at me."

BECK: So is that 10 years for assuming that nine people there on the scene pretty much understood it? Is it 10 years...

SUTTON: No, 10 years is for committing a number of serious crimes. When you shoot an unarmed guy in the back...

BECK: Allegedly.

SUTTON: ... and cover it up. Allegedly? We had a jury trial. Glenn, we had a two-and-a-half-week jury trial. The jury heard all this evidence, including Compean and Ramos. They did.

BECK: But they did not hear all of the evidence, sir. This is something the jury didn`t know about, and that is that the drug smuggler came back into the country with your card, and there are no questions asked because he`s got your card. He comes back and is smuggling drugs yet again.

SUTTON: The October load, the famous October load...

BECK: Shouldn`t it be famous?

SUTTON: Well, the reason it`s famous now is because people have put out so much misinformation about it it`s unbelievable. The idea that we`ve covered up or we lied is ridiculous. All that information was presented to the judge and the defense attorneys. They knew about it. They`re trying to get it into evidence. There was no doubt -- I mean, the jury knew this guy was a scumbag dope dealer.

BECK: Do they know he was part of a cartel?

SUTTON: They knew that he...

BECK: Did they know that he was...

SUTTON: They knew that he drove 743 pounds of marijuana into the country, and he`s an illegal alien.

BECK: I love this in the report, that he was driving a blue Dodge Neon down the Rio Grande with a juvenile. So that`s great. So now he`s got juveniles involved.

SUTTON: What you`re looking at, I assume, is the sealed portion of the record. The reason it`s sealed is because we`re continuing to investigate. In fact, we`ve arrested...

BECK: He wasn`t arrested on it, though, was he?

SUTTON: Right, because he wasn`t arrested, he wasn`t there. We`ve got...

BECK: He wasn`t there for this...

SUTTON: That is the stuff that`s difficult for me to talk about because I`m an officer of the court. People can put it before you, but what I can tell you is, that is information we`re investigating. We`re arresting people out of those reports as you speak.

BECK: Do we normally release someone who has a van full of drugs?

SUTTON: No, we don`t.

BECK: And, again, have immunity for future crimes? Because I know you gave him immunity of the other.

SUTTON: Aldrete has no immunity, except for this one occasion, where our agents screwed up the case.

BECK: So he`s in jail?

SUTTON: No, he`s free, and we`re trying to investigate -- I would love to put him in prison, and he would be in prison right now had Compean and Ramos done their job, instead of shooting at him 15 times, destroying all the evidence, filing a false report, and covering up. We would probably have him. But because they did a number of serious felonies, we don`t have him.

And you may think -- and I heard Congressman Rohrabacher say, oh, well, why is he corrupt? In my definition of corruption, if you shoot 15 times at an unarmed guy, you cover it up, you destroy the evidence, you destroy the crime scene, and you file a false report, that is a big problem in America.

BECK: I agree with you.

SUTTON: And prosecutors cannot look the other way.

BECK: I agree with you.

SUTTON: Then it becomes a debate about punishment. And that is a different -- I have a lot of sympathy for those who say, look, punishment is too high, you know, 10 years. I agree. Punishment in this case is extremely...

BECK: Really? You agree?

SUTTON: I agree it`s extremely high.

BECK: Have you written the president? Have you written your good friend, Gonzales, about this?

SUTTON: What I say about that is the punishment is set by Congress. They set...

BECK: So you have no discretion, you can`t write the president and say, "Come on"?

SUTTON: I do have discretion.

BECK: Have you made that? Have you written it?

SUTTON: And we have discretion at the beginning of the trial with regard to plea bargains and things like that. And what people have said...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: So you can`t make a recommendation?

SUTTON: We have no interest. We have no interest.

BECK: You can`t make the reconstruction?

SUTTON: With regard to a pardon or clemency, at some point, the Department of Justice will probably ask for my recommendation. And when that comes, we`ll make one.

BECK: The border agents, when they caught the guy the second time with the drugs in your car...

SUTTON: OK, Glenn, they did not catch the guy.

BECK: OK, when they found the drugs, and somehow or another he was there with the card, but he wasn`t related to the drugs...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: ... led him to a safe house, where they also found drugs, and someone from your office -- tell me who Laura Gregory (ph) is.

SUTTON: One of my prosecutors.

BECK: One of your prosecutors said, "Do not make any busts here."

SUTTON: All right, that is incorrect. The people out of that second drug load are being arrested. Many of them are in custody now and being charged. You know, I don`t want to give the bad guys all that we`re doing, especially Aldrete, but let me just say that investigation is ongoing. I would love to capture him and put him in jail once I have sufficient, competent evidence to do that.

We would have done that from the beginning, but Compean and Ramos decided they were going to shoot 15 times at an unarmed guy, cover it up, destroy the evidence, and file a false report. All that stuff happened. That destroyed our case.

So then we`re stuck with two agents who`ve never told us about anybody pointing a gun. The first we hear about this shiny object as a gun is a month later, when investigators finally track all the way back to Compean and Ramos. And for the first time ever, somebody said, "Oh, he pointed a shiny object that we thought was a gun."

Now, if it was a good shoot, why wouldn`t they say that from the very first five seconds? "A dope dealer just pointed a gun at us. We shot him 15 times." No grand jury in America would indict them for that.

BECK: I love the fact...

SUTTON: And I guarantee you no Texas jury would convict him. The reason they were convicted is because a Texas jury heard all the evidence, including their testimony, which they rejected, and they knew that, why in the world would you cover it up unless it was a bad shoot?

BECK: There is no question that I don`t want bad cops, and you don`t want bad cops.

SUTTON: Absolutely.

BECK: And I`m with you on going after bad cops, but I`ve got to tell you: This thing stinks from high Heaven.

SUTTON: Why, Glenn? Tell me what smells bad.

BECK: I just did.

SUTTON: But you didn`t know the facts. This is the first time that America`s even heard those facts.

BECK: But America has -- why did you call me and ask me to be on this program?

SUTTON: Because you were saying all kinds of misinformation about this case.

BECK: Really? You are making the rounds right now. You know why? Because you are feeling the heat of the American people.

SUTTON: That is not...

BECK: We smell it. We smell it.

SUTTON: No, what has happened is people are out there saying absolute falsehoods...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: ... homeland security...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Is that like homeland security telling Congress, members of Congress, that these guys were dirty and going to say that they`re going to shoot some Mexicans?

SUTTON: No, another joke. I mean, that occurred six months after the trial was over.

BECK: I understand.

SUTTON: Maybe you guys...

BECK: Are you telling me -- wait, excuse me. You`ve gone on the air and called these guys, one of these guys, a wife-abuser. There is smear tactics left and right.

SUTTON: No, Glenn, let me explain that. Everybody keeps saying, "Oh, they suppressed the October load." We didn`t suppress a thing. The judge said, "It`s not admissible into evidence." Just like we were trying to get in the fact that Ramos had been arrested three times, twice for assaulting his wife, and once for assaulting his father-in-law. We thought it was relevant. Why? Because he`s supposed to report that to Border Patrol when he gets arrested. He didn`t do it. That`s very consistent with what happened here. The judge said, "No, you can`t put it in. It`s not relevant."

BECK: I think the American people believe that it`s relevant that we have homeland security lying to members of Congress and all kinds of smear going on. Something doesn`t smell right.

SUTTON: I wasn`t...

BECK: Johnny Sutton, thank you very much for your time. Back in a minute.

SUTTON: Thank you, Glenn.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: We talked to Congressmen Poe and Rohrabacher before the interview with Johnny Sutton just a minute ago. They had a chance to hear the man and what he had to say for himself. Let`s check back, see if their opinions have changed.

Gentlemen, what did you think of the interview?

REP. TED POE (R), TEXAS: Well, it was obvious to me that he was very relentless in trying to convince the American what occurred in the case. I found it ironic where, about a year ago, the U.S. attorney`s office denied that there was a second drug case that Aldrete had. Then we find out, after we get the DEA report, yes, there was a drug case, there was a second case, and now the U.S. attorney`s office, "Oh, yes, there was one. You caught us in this misinformation."

So it`s a cover-up on the part of the U.S. attorney`s office to let the jury and the American public know what happened at the scene.

BECK: Congressman Poe, you were a judge, were you not?

POE: I was, 22 years.

BECK: You`re a prosecutor?

POE: Correct.

BECK: I asked him, when we went into the commercial break, I said, "Johnny, 100 congressmen just have it wrong?" And he said, "They don`t know the facts. They haven`t read the case. They don`t know everything. Many of them haven`t read the transcript."

And I said, "Even a judge, Congressman Poe?" And he said, "He was a very good judge, and I`m not throwing anybody in Congress under the bus, but they just don`t know this case."

POE: Well, Glenn, I have read the 3,300-page transcript from cover to cover. And I wonder whether Johnny Sutton has read it. You know, after all, he was not the trial prosecutor. And that`s how we found out a bunch of these things that occurred in the trial that really weren`t told or that we found out after the trial really occurred that the jury never heard about. So I have read the transcript.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: For example, he`s claimed that the judge was the one who kept from the jury the fact that there was a second drug-smuggling operation.

BECK: Yes, more than once he said that to me.

ROHRABACHER: Yes, but it was the prosecutor who made the motion to the judge to keep it from the jury.

BECK: Yes, he talked about -- because I asked him about homeland security lying to Congress. My gosh, don`t you go to jail when you lie to Congress?

POE: Normally you do. We met with members of homeland security, and they gave us this song and dance about, "These are rogue cops, and they were determined to shoot an illegal that day."

BECK: And, Congressman, may I interrupt? Did they say to you that they were out to, quote, "shoot a Mexican and you should back off from this because you just don`t know what you`re talking about"?

POE: That is exactly what they said. And then when we get the facts of the case, the transcript, none of that occurred. They made it all up or they were just -- as homeland security later said, "Oh, we`re sorry, we were mistaken about telling you that."

ROHRABACHER: Take a look at what Johnny Sutton just told you. He uses the words, "They shot an unarmed man in the back." Well, first of all, how do they know he was an unarmed man? This, again, Johnny Sutton is believing the drug dealer with a million dollars worth of drugs.

BECK: I know. I know.

ROHRABACHER: And they didn`t shoot him in the back. The bullet wound shows he was leaning backwards, which confirms that he may have been pointing a gun at these guys, but he takes the word of the drug dealer.

BECK: Here`s the thing that really bothers me. And, again, I have this homeland security memo. And he said, "Well, this is one of those lines that keep being taken out of context." This goes to the cover-up.

I asked him about the nine people, plus the two supervisors. Now, these guys say, they just thought everybody knew, everybody was there. And the two supervisors were there. And this is the exact line. It said, "The investigation disclosed that, on February 17th," blah, blah, blah, "the agents that were on location of the shooting incident assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting and/or knew or heard about the shooting." It lists all of them, including the two...

POE: ... two supervisors, right.

BECK: ... the two supervisors. His excuse is that, well, they didn`t find out until later. That`s the supervisor`s testimony when they were informed by homeland security. Now, how -- that`s like me coming to you and saying, "Congressman Poe, did you hear that there was a shooting at my house last night?" And you`d say, "No." And I`d say, "OK, great." And then I`d go to you, Dana, and I`d say, "Did you hear there was a shooting?" And you`d say, "No." And I`d say, "Congressman Poe knew about it." Just because homeland security told them, it doesn`t make any sense.

ROHRABACHER: It`s also worse than that. They went to these supervisors and said, "You are either going to tell us that these two agents lied to you and you didn`t know about this or we`re going to prosecute you." It really appears like the U.S. attorney, which is par for the course, is intimidating a witness in order to get a conviction of the two Border Patrol agents, not the drug dealer.

BECK: Congressman Rohrabacher, talk to me now as a congressman. This is a serious charge. Something doesn`t smell right. Are we in bed with Mexico? Is this dirty to the top? What`s the motivation?

ROHRABACHER: Well, remember, Johnny Sutton is a pal of the president. This is a long-time pal of the president. Number one, it could be the president is basically covering for the mistake in judgment to go after the Border Patrol agents made by his pal, his protege. Or it could be that there`s another agenda at play here, that the president has made promises to Mexico not to have any guns going off at the border, which means we lose control of the border. It could be either one of those.

BECK: That`s a serious charge. How come you don`t investigate?

ROHRABACHER: Well, we are. In fact, my subcommittee -- I have talked to -- the Democrats now control Congress, of course, but the chairman of my subcommittee, Mr. Bill Delahunt, has agreed to have a hearing into this very issue.

BECK: Congressmen, both of you, I appreciate your time with us today. And please, please try to find the spine in the rest of the Republican Party and stop the nonsense in Washington. We`ll be back in just a minute.

POE: Thank you, Glenn.

BECK: You bet.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: In case you missed it yesterday morning, I appeared on "Good Morning America" to talk about immigration. They asked me if I wouldn`t mind sharing my thoughts on the subject and, you know, just to balance things out a little, I`d be appearing alongside somebody named Geraldo Rivera, you know, a nice, calm, peaceful, civil discourse.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANE SAWYER, HOST, "GOOD MORNING AMERICA": You got the floor.

BECK: Law-abiding, the Fort Dix gentlemen were also illegal aliens. We need -- this is about security...

GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS HOST: Your wall wouldn`t keep them out. Your wall wouldn`t keep them out. I mean, please, you know, the problem with the anti-immigration people is they take whatever the flashpoint is, and that becomes the rallying cry. You get three guys from Albania that came through JFK airport.

BECK: Do I now hate Albanians?

RIVERA: But the point is, that you want to build a 2,000-mile wall for $200 billion...

BECK: No, I want to build an 800...

(CROSSTALK)

RIVERA: ... shut out Latin America.

BECK: I want to build an 800...

RIVERA: You want to criminalize 12 million people who are hear, with their children. --

BECK: This is the problem. People don`t listen to each other. I just want to have a conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: It took him 23 seconds to call me a racist on national television. Herein lies the very problem: No one`s having that conversation.

The bill in Congress is not the result of two sides working together to come up with real solutions. It`s a watered-down bill that`s not going to accomplish anything. We`re never going to get anywhere if we can`t stop taking shots at each other and calling each other racist.

Take a step back. Listen to the facts. The three Fort Dix terrorists who came in through JFK, the ones Geraldo was talking about, according to "Newsweek," not the guy who went into Al Capone`s vault, they did come in illegally, not from JFK, but from Mexico. But you`d never know that if you didn`t take time to listen.

I told Geraldo we need to build a fence. And then what am I told? I`m told I`m afraid of brown-skinned people.

Personally, I could care less what your race is. You could be a Swedish nurse, and you`re still not coming in here illegally, as far as I`m concerned, although I might consider amnesty for Swedish nurses only because of the nursing shortage.

It`s not about race. This isn`t a right or left issue. This is an issue of national security and of the laws that are fragrantly being disregarded by millions of people, not just coming here illegally, but forging documents. Since when is it our choice to decide for ourselves which laws to enforce, which ones to obey, and which ones not to?

Perhaps the only law we really should be paying attention to, I mean, the one we should focus on from time to time -- and I know this is crazy, America, it`s not real practical anymore -- but the one law we should pay attention to is the law of common sense. Like that`s going to happen.

From New York, good night.

END